update_saved_searchChange or disable a saved search in the connected GovGazette account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| cadence | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| search_spec | No | ||
| delivery_channels | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal context like 'connected GovGazette account' but does not mention side effects, partial update semantics, or response format. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, earning every word's place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain mutation behavior (e.g., partial updates, not-found handling, return values) but does not. It covers only the high-level action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain name, cadence, search_spec, delivery_channels, or how enabled disables the search. The word 'disable' is the only hint, leaving 6 parameters effectively undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Change or disable') and the resource ('a saved search in the connected GovGazette account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like save_opportunity_search, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_opportunity_search or update_tracked_opportunity. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.